Secular Acceleration of the Moon

[OilIsMastery]

Topic: Does Secular Acceleration Provide Evidence for Earth Expansion?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/f/f3/200px-Edmond_Halley_5.jpg

In 1683, Sir Edmond Halley (discoverer of Halley's Comet (http://www.vigyanprasar.gov.in/scientists/EdmondHalley.htm)) commenced a long series of lunar studies, discovering the Moon's secular acceleration (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O80-secularacceleration.html) in 1693. This was based upon Ptolemy's recordings of eclipses in Babylon in the 8th Century BC in the Almagest.

Direct measurements of the acceleration have been only been possible since 1969 using the Apollo retro-reflectors left on the Moon. The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994) (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html).

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963). This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)

However there is no reason to believe tidal forces have changed since the Mesozoic unless Earth expansion is taking place.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JGR....68.4281S), Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Dickey, et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/265/5171/482), Volume 265, Number 5171, Pages 482-490, Jul 1994

[James R]

The secular acceleration of the Moon is the apparent gradual increase in the rate at which the moon is observed to cross the sky.

The cause of this acceleration is well understood. It is due to tidal interactions between Earth and the Moon that cause the Earth's rotation to gradually slow down over time, and the Moon to gradually move away from the Earth.

For more information, see here:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

The scientific explanation of secular acceleration does not require the (false) assumption that the Earth is expanding.

Moreover, I have shown in a recent debate with OilIsMastery that the Earth is not in fact expanding:

86898

Why OIM continues to promote this spurious claim is a mystery.

[OilIsMastery]

The cause of this acceleration is well understood.
Then perhaps you can explain using observation, logic, and reason? Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.

For more information, see here:

http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html
OK. I went there (obviously, since I provided the reference for you) and this is what I read.

The secular acceleration of the Moon is very poorly known and may not be constant.
"Very poorly known" sounds just a little bit different than "well understood."

:rolleyes:



Why OIM continues to promote this spurious claim is a mystery.
Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead.

[Ophiolite]

Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.It seems you are unfamiliar with the interesting and useful concept of the hyperlink. This provides a connection between a text or graphic within a web page and another such page.

It looks rather like this http://OIM is an idiot.gov

You also seem unfamiliar withthe phrase For more information . This means that additional knowledge to what has already been imparted can be accessed by following the adjacent instructions.

If we put these two radical concepts together you find that James has provided a link that will lead to peer reviewed papers dealing with the issue.

I am so glad to have been of help in furthering your education. I am sure many of us are willing to contribute to this noble end. (It's certainly too large a job for one person. So much to teach, so few brain cells to teach it to.)

[OilIsMastery]

It seems you are unfamiliar with the interesting and useful concept of the hyperlink. This provides a connection between a text or graphic within a web page and another such page.

It looks rather like this http://OIM is an idiot.gov

You also seem unfamiliar withthe phrase For more information . This means that additional knowledge to what has already been imparted can be accessed by following the adjacent instructions.

If we put these two radical concepts together you find that James has provided a link that will lead to peer reviewed papers dealing with the issue.

I am so glad to have been of help in furthering your education. I am sure many of us are willing to contribute to this noble end. (It's certainly too large a job for one person. So much to teach, so few brain cells to teach it to.)
You provided no peer-reviewed reference, citation, or link in your emotional response. That's the typical methodology of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.

[AlphaNumeric]

Then perhaps you can explain using observation, logic, and reason? Or perhaps you can provide a peer-reviewed scientific reference, citation, or link for your claim? So far you have failed to do so.The dynamics of the Earth-Moon system are explained by Newtonian gravity (or you can use GR if you want to get really accurate) and there are no spurious extra accelerations or slow downs or motions. The fact that no one says "Science cannot explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth!!" would seem to suggest that science can explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Anyone who has studied orbital mechanics, which you most certainly have not, will know various motions of the Earth or Moon which are not commonly talked about but which are easily described and accounted for using our knowledge of gravitational systems. The precession of the Earth, the slow down of the Moon's orbit and the length of an Earth day, the tidal locking of the Earth. All simple to account for and describe when you learn even Newtonian physics.

You keep saying "Provide me with a link!!" as if it's our fault you don't know mainstream work. If you're going to try to disprove mainstream work it's pretty wise to actually be familiar with it. The fact you deny material you don't know, and it would seem the majority of your crank sources don't know, shows you aren't interested in scientific integrity, just whining as loud as you can.
Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead.You are neither. If you were following the truth, wherever it may lead, you'd have spent time and effort learning the mainstream science views so that you are competant at the science and familiar with any of it's short comings. You would also be open to scientific argument as to the possibility you are incorrect in your claims. Despite being thumped by James in the debate thread, you continue oblivious and you deliberately misconstrue what people say to you. You are not a scientist and you are not interested in truth.

[OilIsMastery]

The dynamics of the Earth-Moon system are explained by Newtonian gravity (or you can use GR if you want to get really accurate) and there are no spurious extra accelerations or slow downs or motions.
What is causing the moon to accelerate away from the Earth if not an increase in the mass and circumference of the Earth? According to Newtonian gravity, if the Earth were a fixed radius/mass, the moon would have crashed into the Earth already or been torn apart by tidal forces 1.4 billion years ago (Slichter, 1963).

The fact that no one says "Science cannot explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth!!" would seem to suggest that science can explain why the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Anyone who has studied orbital mechanics, which you most certainly have not, will know various motions of the Earth or Moon which are not commonly talked about but which are easily described and accounted for using our knowledge of gravitational systems. The precession of the Earth, the slow down of the Moon's orbit and the length of an Earth day, the tidal locking of the Earth. All simple to account for and describe when you learn even Newtonian physics.

You keep saying "Provide me with a link!!" as if it's our fault you don't know mainstream work. If you're going to try to disprove mainstream work it's pretty wise to actually be familiar with it. The fact you deny material you don't know, and it would seem the majority of your crank sources don't know, shows you aren't interested in scientific integrity, just whining as loud as you can.
You are neither. If you were following the truth, wherever it may lead, you'd have spent time and effort learning the mainstream science views so that you are competant at the science and familiar with any of it's short comings. You would also be open to scientific argument as to the possibility you are incorrect in your claims. Despite being thumped by James in the debate thread, you continue oblivious and you deliberately misconstrue what people say to you. You are not a scientist and you are not interested in truth.
I refer you to my comments posted above.

[Ophiolite]

You provided no peer-reviewed reference, citation, or link in your emotional response. That's the typical methodology of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.The reference has been provided by JamesR. I have pointed that out to you. I have also pointed out that you have, with your typical dishonesty, pretended he did not respond.

[OilIsMastery]

The reference has been provided by JamesR. I have pointed that out to you. I have also pointed out that you have, with your typical dishonesty, pretended he did not respond.
I provided the reference and you obviously didn't read it...:rolleyes:

Still waiting for a scientific reference to support your religious theology.

[Ophiolite]

I provided the reference and you obviously didn't read it...:rolleyes:

Still waiting for a scientific reference to support your religious theology.Now try to follow this. I realise your intellect is sub-standard.
You asked for a scientific reference.
James R, in the second post in this thread provided a link:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

That link, offers a layperson's overview of the topic. It includes a reference to a peer reviewed research paper on the topic.

Therefore, your continued denial that a scientific reference has been provided means either a) you can't read b) you don't understand what you read c) you don't know how to follow a link d) you are dishonest troll.

Frankly, I think it's a little of all of them.

[OilIsMastery]

Now try to follow this. I realise your intellect is sub-standard.
You asked for a scientific reference.
James R, in the second post in this thread provided a link:
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/secular.html

That link, offers a layperson's overview of the topic. It includes a reference to a peer reviewed research paper on the topic.

Therefore, your continued denial that a scientific reference has been provided means either a) you can't read b) you don't understand what you read c) you don't know how to follow a link d) you are dishonest troll.

Frankly, I think it's a little of all of them.
I provided that link to James R. in the opening post.

You obviously didn't read it.

It says and I quote:

The secular acceleration of the Moon is very poorly known and may not be constant.
Exactly what part of "very poorly known" don't you understand?

[Ophiolite]

The part where you take it out of context.

[AlphaNumeric]

According to Newtonian gravity, if the Earth were a fixed radius/mass, the moon would have crashed into the Earth already or been torn apart by tidal forces 1.4 billion years ago (Slichter, 1963).Not true. Can you give me the specific reference or if it's a journal available online, the article itself. Why 1.4 billion years?

Newtonian gravity does not predict the Moon crashing into the Earth. Ever heard of a little thing called angular momentum? Planets don't spiral into stars and moons don't spiral into planets without a huge blow (ie collisions with one another) or a weaker, but sustained, force over very long period of time.

Newtonian gravity says that for a fixed radius and mass Moon and Earth they will just orbit their barycenter for ever, to a first approximation. Taking into account smaller effects you get things like tidal locking and the slow down of the Earth's rotation. Taking into account even smaller effects (including those of general relativity) you get orbital precession (like seen in Mercury and the Sun) and a minute quantity of energy and angular momentum lost via gravitational radiations. That latter effect equates to the Earth losing about a kJ of energy a second.

As for tidal forces, the Moon has always been outside it's Roche limit, with respect to the Earth, since it solidified. Therefore it's internal strength has been enough to keep it from being torn apart by tidal forces. The Jovian moon Io is only about 5% further from Jupiter than our moon is from us and despite Jupiter exerting enormous tidal effects on it, the planet is still together. It vents the energy imparted on it by Jupiter via volcanic activity.

You cite a 1960s paper/book/claim without actually quoting it and we've seen how disingenuous you are when you 'interpret' what people have said to you so you will have to provide the source in question to make your claims more justified.
I refer you to my comments posted above.That didn't address what I said. When you are ignorant of a well known fact (often well known to even school children doing the sciences) you say "Got a source! Provide a peer reviewed paper!". We shouldn't be having to provide you with such things expected to be known to anyone who has gotten an education in a 1st world country. Further more, you should be actively reading about mainstream models, learning the techniques and methods and concepts used to say model the stellar dynamics between the Earth and the Moon. But you don't. You don't read mainstream work on things you denounce, you just denounce 'the gist of it' without knowing how much evidence the things you denounce have.

You 'debate' like Kaneda. You don't make an effort to learn something but you don't like (and more often than not, don't understand) a section of science and you take the view that if you don't understand it it's wrong. Then you (and he) put words in people's mouths, endless repeat the same debunked claims, lie, ignore corrections and not once who you have a working understanding of the things you denounce.

Here's a simple question on Newtonian gravity which was asked to the 1st year class I help teach and mark last week :

An object is projected vertically upwards at 4km/s. Neglecting air resistance, what is the maximum height it reaches?

Let's see if you know the first thing about Newtonian gravity by you answering that.

[pjdude1219]

Then allow me to clarify the mystery. As a philosopher and a scientist I have a moral duty to follow the truth wherever it may lead. than why don't you?

[OilIsMastery]

Can you give me the specific reference or if it's a journal available online, the article itself.
I did give the specific reference and provided the online link to the article, however you deliberately ignored it.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JGR....68.4281S), Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Why 1.4 billion years?
Mathematical extrapolation. The thing you always do wrong. 3.8 cm per year, ask someone else to do the math for you.

Newtonian gravity does not predict the Moon crashing into the Earth.
Yes it does. See above.

Ever heard of a little thing called angular momentum? Planets don't spiral into stars and moons don't spiral into planets without a huge blow (ie collisions with one another) or a weaker, but sustained, force over very long period of time.

Newtonian gravity says that for a fixed radius and mass Moon and Earth they will just orbit their barycenter for ever, to a first approximation. Taking into account smaller effects you get things like tidal locking and the slow down of the Earth's rotation. Taking into account even smaller effects (including those of general relativity) you get orbital precession (like seen in Mercury and the Sun) and a minute quantity of energy and angular momentum lost via gravitational radiations. That latter effect equates to the Earth losing about a kJ of energy a second.

As for tidal forces, the Moon has always been outside it's Roche limit, with respect to the Earth, since it solidified. Therefore it's internal strength has been enough to keep it from being torn apart by tidal forces. The Jovian moon Io is only about 5% further from Jupiter than our moon is from us and despite Jupiter exerting enormous tidal effects on it, the planet is still together. It vents the energy imparted on it by Jupiter via volcanic activity.

You cite a 1960s paper/book/claim without actually quoting it and we've seen how disingenuous you are when you 'interpret' what people have said to you so you will have to provide the source in question to make your claims more justified.
That didn't address what I said. When you are ignorant of a well known fact (often well known to even school children doing the sciences) you say "Got a source! Provide a peer reviewed paper!". We shouldn't be having to provide you with such things expected to be known to anyone who has gotten an education in a 1st world country. Further more, you should be actively reading about mainstream models, learning the techniques and methods and concepts used to say model the stellar dynamics between the Earth and the Moon. But you don't. You don't read mainstream work on things you denounce, you just denounce 'the gist of it' without knowing how much evidence the things you denounce have.

You 'debate' like Kaneda. You don't make an effort to learn something but you don't like (and more often than not, don't understand) a section of science and you take the view that if you don't understand it it's wrong. Then you (and he) put words in people's mouths, endless repeat the same debunked claims, lie, ignore corrections and not once who you have a working understanding of the things you denounce.

Here's a simple question on Newtonian gravity which was asked to the 1st year class I help teach and mark last week :

An object is projected vertically upwards at 4km/s. Neglecting air resistance, what is the maximum height it reaches?

Let's see if you know the first thing about Newtonian gravity by you answering that.
All of that is very wrong. A typical emotional response with no scientific support or reference.

[Vkothii]

This like watching a roadrunner cartoon. OIM hasn't looked down yet.

[AlphaNumeric]

Mathematical extrapolation. The thing you always do wrong. 3.8 cm per year, ask someone else to do the math for you.
Proof you not only didn't get the figure from a paper but also that you don't understand the gravitational dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (or any other similar system). The rate the Moon-Earth distance is changing is dependent upon it's distance, it was slower long ago. If you'd bothered to learn any physics or read up on that particular phenomena you'd know that but instead you demonstrate your ignorance.

And your attempt to take a pot shot at my maths ability is laughable, given you completely ignored the simple mathematical physics question relating to gravity I asked you. Got something to hide? Unwilling to demonstrate a working grasp of the physics which relates to this and so many of your other posts? Give it a go, show your attempt and I'll point out any mistakes and walk you through it. So while I might get my maths wrong now and again, at least I can do it. At least I try to learn it. At least I am learning. What is your excuse for your ignorance?
All of that is very wrong. A typical emotional response with no scientific support or reference.
Nice avoidance of addressing anything I said or the question I asked you. Scared?

I wasn't trying to make a formal scientific argument. James has done that in the debate forum and crushed you. I was commenting on your inability to hold a rational discussion. But rather than defend yourself in response to my criticism, you run away. Away from an opportunity to demonstrate you can do the kind of physics expected of students their very first term of university. And just like always, you show you're a hypocrite for trying to insult my maths skills.

So, going to put your physics where your mouth is and demonstrate you know the first thing about the quantitative side of the physics this thread is all about?

[OilIsMastery]

Proof you not only didn't get the figure from a paper but also that you don't understand the gravitational dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (or any other similar system).
The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994).

The rate the Moon-Earth distance is changing is dependent upon it's distance, it was slower long ago.
How do you know that? Because your religion tells you that? What infallible Scripture did you consult? The Holy Wikipedia?

If you'd bothered to learn any physics or read up on that particular phenomena you'd know that but instead you demonstrate your ignorance.

And your attempt to take a pot shot at my maths ability is laughable, given you completely ignored the simple mathematical physics question relating to gravity I asked you. Got something to hide? Unwilling to demonstrate a working grasp of the physics which relates to this and so many of your other posts? Give it a go, show your attempt and I'll point out any mistakes and walk you through it. So while I might get my maths wrong now and again, at least I can do it. At least I try to learn it. At least I am learning. What is your excuse for your ignorance?
Nice avoidance of addressing anything I said or the question I asked you. Scared?

I wasn't trying to make a formal scientific argument. James has done that in the debate forum and crushed you. I was commenting on your inability to hold a rational discussion. But rather than defend yourself in response to my criticism, you run away. Away from an opportunity to demonstrate you can do the kind of physics expected of students their very first term of university. And just like always, you show you're a hypocrite for trying to insult my maths skills.

So, going to put your physics where your mouth is and demonstrate you know the first thing about the quantitative side of the physics this thread is all about?
Yet another emotional response with no scientific reference.

[AlphaNumeric]

I did give the specific reference and provided the online link to the article, however you deliberately ignored it.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JGR....68.4281S), Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963Look what I found (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982RvGSP..20..457H). More recent, more citations and an abstract which categorically states the opposite to what you do. Plus, when you search the journal website for the paper you linked to (ie the author and year of publication) it doesn't give it in the results.

That enough of a peer reviewed scientific response for ya? :roflmao: I am sure you have come across plenty of similar papers but just decided to ignore them because you didn't like what they had to say. Hence why you've latched onto an infrequently signed paper from a year when satellite technology, Moon laser ranging and even things like high precision atomic clocks either didn't exist or weren't anywhere near as good as they are now.

I'm sure you're going to give some laughable excuse why you ignore it. Just like whatever pathetic excuse you give not to do that physics question I asked you (takes about 3 minutes to do).

[AlphaNumeric]

The results from Lunar Laser Ranging show that the Moon's mean distance from Earth is increasing by 3.8 cm per year (Dickey, et al., 1994). I didn't say it wasn't 3.8cm/year. I said it hasn't always been that fast. Didn't you read what I said?
How do you know that? Because your religion tells you that? What infallible Scripture did you consult? The Holy Wikipedia?
You're the one who mentioned Newtonian gravity. Newtonian gravity has the rate of separation slowing down as you go backwards in time, as my above post's linked paper shows.

Nice hypocrisy though. You're allowed to say things like "According to Newtonian gravity, " to try to support your argument but now I'm not because it disagrees with you? So much for you being scientific.
Yet another emotional response with no scientific reference. Yet another cop out because you cannot do the question I asked and you cannot retort my statements of fact about you being a liar. Do you think people don't notice? :shrug: You and Kaneda are like peas in a pod. Someone says something you cannot retort, you just roll out your default "I'm ignoring this because I cannot bring myself to admit you're right" phrase. His is "You're a parrot. Take your medication". Yours is "No scientific reference" in a post which wasn't discussing science but your attitude and methodology towards science.

[OilIsMastery]

Look what I found (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982RvGSP..20..457H). More recent, more citations and an abstract which categorically states the opposite to what you do. Plus, when you search the journal website for the paper you linked to (ie the author and year of publication) it doesn't give it in the results.

That enough of a peer reviewed scientific response for ya?
The bulk of peer-reviewed papers disagree with those post hoc assumptions.

E.G.:

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." (Williams 2000)

Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980esvr.book.....L), Page 449, 1980

Williams, G.E., Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbits (http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf), Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 37-59, 2000

[OilIsMastery]

Look what I found. More recent
Note: my Williams 2000 paper is the more recent one.

[Trippy]

From your paper:

These figures are the only available direct estimates
of I/I0 for the Precambrian and argue against significant
overall change in Earth’s moment of inertia since ;620
Ma.Moreover, they rule out rapid Earth expansion since
that time by endogenous (noncosmological) mechanisms,
particularly the hypothesis of rapid expansion
since the Paleozoic...

The
suggested increasing mean rate of lunar recession since
2450 Ma is consistent with increasing oceanic tidal dissipation
as Earth’s rotation slows [see Hansen, 1982;
Webb, 1982]. The present high rate of lunar recession
may reflect the near resonance of oceanic free modes
and tidal frequencies [Lambeck, 1980; Su¨ndermann,
1982; Brosche, 1984].

This tidal
scenario suggests that a close approach of the Moon has
not occurred at any time during Earth history (Figure 15,
curve d). The findings, while tentative, are consistent
with other tidal histories [e.g., Hansen, 1982; Webb,
1982].

The available Proterozoic rhythmite
data are consistent with an overall low rate of tidal
friction and the long-term stability of the Moon’s orbit.

So your own paper disagrees with you.

[OilIsMastery]

So your own paper disagrees with you.
You are lying again. The direct quote does not contradict itself.

[Trippy]

You are lying again. The direct quote does not contradict itself.

Actually, it's you that's lying (again).

First off, all of the wuotes I provided are direct quotes from your own paper, and they all disagree with what you say.

Second, you're quoting the Author out of context (no surprises there).

The preceeding sentence
Tracing the history of Earth’s tidal deceleration and
the evolution of the Moon’s orbit is a major challenge
for geology.
combined with the fact that the sentence you're quoting clearly state or imply that, as with all good introductions (Which is, after all, what you're quoting) is discussing the reasons for the work.

Clearly, when viewed in the context of the rest of the paper, especially when the author explicitly rules out the possibility of an expanding earth of the scale that you've discussed, and explicitly states in his conclusions, that based on the information we have, it appears that the model you're claiming this quote disproves is the correct one.

So, once again, you're lying, and you're misrepresenting the Authors work.

[D H]

Good grief, OIM. Reaching back nearly half a century to find a paper that purportedly proves your misguided concepts (purportedly because the paper is not available at the website you posted; even the abstract of the paper is not available) is not just cherry-picking. You just picked the whole orchard!

Slichter's paper was published when plate tectonics theory was in its infancy. Slichter did see one way out of the dilemna of the time scale of the Earth-moon system posed in his paper. The discrepancy would be solved if "for some unknown reason" the tidal torque was much less in the past than in the present. While he couldn't find such a reason, scientists in the intervening 45 years have.

The way out is through plate tectonics. The current configuration of the continents does a very good job of impeding the tides. This current configuration is anomalistic. In the past we have rarely had even one set of continents that spans over 100 degrees of latitude. We now have two. The Americas span 138 degrees of latitude and Europe/Asia/Africa span 116 degrees. This configuration creates a lot of tidal friction. Past configurations, not near so much.

[OilIsMastery]

Good grief, OIM. Reaching back nearly half a century to find a paper that purportedly proves your misguided concepts (purportedly because the paper is not available at the website you posted; even the abstract of the paper is not available) is not just cherry-picking. You just picked the whole orchard!

Slichter's paper was published when plate tectonics theory was in its infancy. Slichter did see one way out of the dilemna of the time scale of the Earth-moon system posed in his paper. The discrepancy would be solved if "for some unknown reason" the tidal torque was much less in the past than in the present. While he couldn't find such a reason, scientists in the intervening 45 years have.

The way out is through plate tectonics. The current configuration of the continents does a very good job of impeding the tides. This current configuration is anomalistic. In the past we have rarely had even one set of continents that spans over 100 degrees of latitude. We now have two. The Americas span 138 degrees of latitude and Europe/Asia/Africa span 116 degrees. This configuration creates a lot of tidal friction. Past configurations, not near so much.
Unfortunately for you 2000 AD was not a half a century ago. It was 8 years ago. So far I have provided the most contemporary reference for secular acceleration. Expanding Earth 1-Plate Tectonics-0. Furthermore, absolute truth is eternal so the date of the paper is irrelevant.

[D H]

You got the score backwards on that 2000 paper. Expanding Earth 0. Do you even read the papers you cite?

Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together ar-
gue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ~620 Ma.

[AlphaNumeric]

The bulk of peer-reviewed papers disagree with those post hoc assumptions.No, the bulk of peer reviewed papers agree that the Earth and Moon have not changed in size and mass by a significant amount for billions of years, that the Moon's rate of retreat from the Earth is not constant and it's always been outside the Roche Limit of the Earth since it's formation.

Clearly the 'bulk' of papers say that because those are the mainstream models. If the majority of scientists thought differently the mainstream models would be different. That's practically a tautology.

[OilIsMastery]

Hence the rhythmite data and the astronomical and astrometric observations together argue against significant change in Earth’s radius by any mechanism at least since ~620 Ma.
Mazumder and Arima are puzzled by your unquestioning fundamentalist religious faith in tidal rythmite data.

"Determination of absolute Earth-Moon distances and Earth's paleorotational parameters in the distant geological past from past from tidal rhythmite data, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month."

The length of the month is of course increasing over time as the Earth expands and the rotation of the Earth slows as predicted by Kant (1754).

"...analysis of ancient tidal rhythmite data, however, is not straightforward."

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past."

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)."

Read it and weep...:bawl:

Mazumder, R., and Arima, M., Tidal Rhythmites and Their Implications (http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR2004.pdf), Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Pages 79-95, 2005

[Steve100]

Might, if, likely.

[OilIsMastery]

Might, if, likely.
So you admit so-called "pseudoscience" is a real possibility. Welcome to the science club.

It is self-evident that G varies: http://www.dinox.org/

Attempts to find and solve for G have been an utter failure, which is to say it's a myth.

Gillies, G.T., et al., The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/60/2/001), Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225, 1997

[Trippy]

Mazumder and Arima are puzzled by your unquestioning fundamentalist religious faith in tidal rythmite data.

"Determination of absolute Earth-Moon distances and Earth's paleorotational parameters in the distant geological past from past from tidal rhythmite data, however, is ambiguous because of the difficulties in determining the absolute length of the ancient lunar sidereal month."

The length of the month is of course increasing over time as the Earth expands and the rotation of the Earth slows as predicted by Kant (1754).

"...analysis of ancient tidal rhythmite data, however, is not straightforward."

"It is important to note that all the periods [Earth's orbit and year] were likely of different duration in the geological past."

"This implies that slow Earth expansion might have occured if G varies (Runcorn 1964, pg. 825)."

Read it and weep...:bawl:

Mazumder, R., and Arima, M., Tidal Rhythmites and Their Implications (http://www.mantleplumes.org/WebDocuments/MazumderESR2004.pdf), Earth-Science Reviews, Volume 69, Pages 79-95, 2005

Unfortuntaely for you, Mazumder and Arima elsewhere in that paper explicitly state that the research that has been done into tidal rythmite data is correct and accurate.

Once again, you're being blatantly dishonest, and misrepresenting peer reviewed science to support your own views.

[Trippy]

So you admit so-called "pseudoscience" is a real possibility. Welcome to the science club.

It is self-evident that G varies: http://www.dinox.org/

Attempts to find and solve for G have been an utter failure, which is to say it's a myth.

Gillies, G.T., et al., The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0034-4885/60/2/001), Reports on Progress in Physics, Volume 60, Pages 151-225, 1997

You're being dishonest about Steve100's post.

Steve100 is simply pointing out to you the same thing I must have half a dozen times already - the use of cautious language in the paper.

The entertainment of an idea does not imply acceptance of that idea, as can be gathered from the context of the rest of the paper.

[Ophiolite]

OilIsMastery has now demonstrated with a blinding consistency that he is a liar, a fool and a blaggard. Each of these points has been amply demonstrated on multiple threads, in a variety of contexts, by a range of people. I suggest that there is no longer anything to be gained by feeding his appetite for self-humilitation and therefore propose that all of us cease to respond in anyway to any of his posts in future.
Deprived of the food of controversy his small intellect will soon dry up, wither away and be carried by the wind of indifference into the darkness forever.

[OilIsMastery]

OilIsMastery has now demonstrated with a blinding consistency that he is a liar, a fool and a blaggard. Each of these points has been amply demonstrated on multiple threads, in a variety of contexts, by a range of people. I suggest that there is no longer anything to be gained by feeding his appetite for self-humilitation and therefore propose that all of us cease to respond in anyway to any of his posts in future.
Deprived of the food of controversy his small intellect will soon dry up, wither away and be carried by the wind of indifference into the darkness forever.
Great. Wonderful. I am all of those things you call me. However this is not a thread about me. It's about the secular acceleration of the moon and how it cannot be accounted for by tidal forces.

"Currently, the moon is moving away from the Earth at such a great rate, that if you extrapolate back in time -- the moon would have been so close to the Earth 1.4 billion years ago that it would have been torn apart by tidal forces (Slichter, 1963).

"The implications of employing the present rate of tidal energy dissipation on a geological timescale are catastrophic. Around 1500 Ma the Moon would have been close to the Earth, with the consequence that the much larger tidal forces would have disrupted the Moon or caused the total melting of Earth's mantle and of the moon." (Williams 2000)

"This was a mystery for decades that surprised mainstream planetary scientists. It is now explained away by assuming that tidal forces were not as great during the Mesozoic as they are today." (McCarthy, 2003)

However there is no reason to believe tidal forces have changed since the Mesozoic unless Earth expansion is taking place.

Slichter, L. B., Secular Effects of Tidal friction upon the Earth's Rotation (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1963JGR....68.4281S), Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 68, Number 14, Jul 1963

Lambeck, K., The Earth's Variable Rotation: Geophysical Causes and Consequences (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980esvr.book.....L), Page 449, 1980

Dickey, et al., Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program, Science (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/265/5171/482), Volume 265, Number 5171, Pages 482-490, Jul 1994

Williams, G.E., Geological Constraints on the Precambrian History of the Earth's Rotation and the Moon's Orbits (http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf), Reviews of Geophysics, Volume 38, Number 1, Pages 37-59, 2000

[James R]

OIM:

Please do not repeat previously-debunked posts.

Thankyou.

[OilIsMastery]

OIM:

Please do not repeat previously-debunked posts.

Thankyou.
Your post has no scientific content James. Not one scientific reference. That is an emotional response pure and simple.

[AlphaNumeric]

Your post has no scientific content James. Not one scientific reference. That is an emotional response pure and simple.You seem incapable of realising that in a debate it is relevant to call the debating methodology of one of the debaters into question. Saying "You are misquoting me" or "You put words in my mouth" doesn't need a scientific reference yet it is very much a relevant comment. Your repeated use of the above "That is an emotional response" is evidence that you do not want to discuss the short comings in your debating style. Further more, you say it even when the post you're responding to isn't emotional but a statement of fact. James is asking you to not repeat false statements. That isn't emotional, it's a logical thing to say if someone wishes to streamline or improve a debate. Why repeat falsified claims?

Could it be you have too much of an emotional connection to them and you're unwilling to be scientific about it? Given your love of lying in threads like this, much of your posts have no scientific content.

[James R]

Your post has no scientific content James. Not one scientific reference. That is an emotional response pure and simple.

Yes. Yes. And no.

It is a request once again for you to show some integrity.